9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g credit of the sanctioned amount in their RG 23A Pt. II. Further, the ratio of the O-I-A No. 301/CE/APPL/CHD/97 in the case of M/s. Montari Inds. Ltd. is inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as that M/s. Montari Inds. Ltd. had not availed the sanctioned rebate claim whereas in the instant case appellant have already taken the credit of sanctioned rebate claim in their RG-23A Pt. II. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to disturb the O-I-O passed by A.C. Central Excise Ropar and uphold the same . Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is exporting the bulk drugs on payment of Central Excise Duty under the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After receiving the proof of export the appellant filed 198 rebate claims under Rule 12(1)(a) during the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 4,06,52,757/-. The claims were found to be admissible. Out of this an amount of Rs. 2,53,22,115/- was paid in cash and an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead of granting it as credit; that the Asstt. Commissiner rejected their request; that they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their appeal. 4. Ld. Consultant submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any decision on the submission of the appellants regarding inapplicability of Rule 57F(17) pertaining to lapsing of credit in respect of the amount sanctioned as rebate on goods exported under Rule 12 and credited in RG 23A Pt. II account. Ld. Consultant contended that provisions of Rule 57F(17) would apply to the credit of specified duty lying unutilised on 1-3-1997; that the amount of rebate sanctioned of the duty paid on goods exported under claim for rebate and rebate sanctioned and credited to RG 23A Pt. II is crediting of cash and not specfied duty and hence on this amount the provisions of Rule 57F(17) would not apply and this amount lying in credit cannot lapse. Ld. Consultant submitted that the payment of duty in RG 23A Pt. II for clearance of goods for exports under rebate is to be treated as payment in cash, therefore, the payment of duty through debit entry in Modvat credit account has to be treated as payment of duty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants themselves in their RG 23A Pt. II. The amount so credited was being utilised by them for payment of duty on the final product as is evident from the debit entries made in RG 23A Pt. II. On 1-3-1997, the Govt. of India introduced Rule 57F(17) which inter alia provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (12) of Rule 57A, any credit of specified duty lying unutilised on the 1st Day of March, 1997 with the manufacturer, of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 28 or 29 shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods whether cleared for home consumption or for export. The appellants filed a letter on 26-3-1997 requesting the Asstt. Commissioner to grant rebate in cash instead of granting it as credit in RG 23A Pt. II account. We find that this request was filed on 26-3-1997 rebate was being granted from time to time. It was not a one time affair. The appellants on their own have been accepting sanction of rebate partly in cash and partly as credit in RG 23A Pt. II. If it was not the credit of specified duty then how was it being used by the assessee for payment of duty on the finished products. In terms of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a credit of specified duty is not sustainable in law. Once the appellants had on their own credited the part sanctioned as rebate, the amount for all purposes became a credit of specified duty and hence the contention of the appellant that it was not a credit of specified duty is not tenable. 8. The contention of the appellant that the amount of rebate sanctioned should have been given to them in cash is an after thought. The better course for them was that instead of accepting a part of the rebate sanctioned to be credited in their RG 23A Part II, they should have filed an appeal and agitated against that. Once they accepted the position, they cannot agitate this after the enactment of Rule 57F(17). We do not find any mistake in the circulars referred to by the appellant. In the Circular it was clarified that payment of duty through a debit entry in the proforma credit account is to be treated as payment of duty in cash for the purpose of admissibility of rebate of duty under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that we are not dealing with a claim under Rule 12, we are dealing with the lapsing of credit as on 1-3-1997 and thus, there is nothing wrong in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
